From: Douglas Gregor (doug.gregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-10 11:33:38
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:13 AM, John Maddock wrote:
>> I ported large parts of Boost 1.32 to embedded Visual C++ 4 some time
>> ago. One
>> of the major changes was because the included cross compilers reported
>> _MSC_VER somewhere in between 1200 and 1202. IOW, a plethora of cases
>> that
>> checked ==1200 or >1200 failed to work for a few of them.
>
>> I already once submitted a patch, but it hasn't been incorporated
>> yet, so here
>> is one against CVS from this afternoon. The changes I made were mostly
>> mechanical:
>
> My mistake, I think I promised to apply that, but never got around to
> it.
>
>> MSC_VER <= 1200 -> MSC_VER < 1300
>> MSC_VER == 1200 -> MSC_VER < 1300
>> MSC_VER >= 1300 -> MSC_VER > 1200
>
> That last one is wrong, I assume you meant to type:
>
> MSC_VER >= 1200 -> MSC_VER > 1200
>
>> Some other changes were that I corrected a few comments that spoke of
>> only
>> VC6, but there are too many of them - I didn't get them all. Another
>> change
>> was that I prepared the autolinking feature for evc4.
>
> The autolink changes look OK, but do they they match the names that
> bjam produces (assuming you can compile at all with bjam with eVC++)?
>
> The changes to visualc.hpp have some misplaced #errors in there, in
> fact I don't think we should be adding #errors at all just because we
> can't define a meaningful BOOST_COMPILER macro (the macro is only for
> informative use after all).
>
> I spotted a mistake in
>
> RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/boost/mpl/aux_/numeric_op.hpp,v
>
> - && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, != 1200)
> + && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, < 1300)
>
> should be:
>
> - && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, != 1200)
> + && BOOST_WORKAROUND(BOOST_MSVC, >= 1300)
>
> In
>
> RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/more/microsoft_vcpp.html,v
>
> The additions:
>
> +<tr>
> +<td>Microsoft Visual C++ 7.0 </td>
> +<td>1300</td>
> +</tr>
> +
> +<tr>
> +<td>Microsoft Visual C++ 7.1 </td>
> +<td>1310</td>
> +</tr>
> +
>
> Shouldn't be there (since the document describes bugs found in VC6
> only).
>
> Other than that the changes all look OK to me.
>
> Doug, is it too close to release to apply blanket changes like this?
> I'm guessing that if they cause any problems they should show up PDQ.
It's really too late for this kind of far-reaching change. Any breakage
with this patch will mean that we'll have to revert it, and it will
cost us about 3 days given the current regression-test turnaround time.
However, if someone can verify that there are no new regressions on VC
6.0, 7.0, and 7.1 before committing the patch, I'll allow it.
Doug